Friday, 30 November 2012

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672):

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

Thursday, 29 November 2012

Um ....wow, so a UK Magazine called the Mirror, Sunday Celebs edition, just put out an article on me and just to clear up the absolutely wrong so called quotes from me, I have never had anorexia nor did I ever say "no one should be as famous as me". I said in the interview, when asked about fame, that I have no desire to be as famous as Britney or Madonna. I said that kind of fame was too much for any person and that I have experienced a portion of what they deal with and that I didn't handle that well and I'm happy where I'm at in my career. Side note, I love when people take what you say and twist it to make you sound obnoxious and arrogant ....nice job Mirror.

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Our serialisation of a biography of Mick Jagger in July erroneously described model and Brazilian TV presenter Luciana Gimenez Morad as a soft-porn actress. It also said that she had received a lump sum payment from the star after their son was born.

In fact, while she does receive monthly child support, she neither requested nor received a lump sum. We apologise to Ms Gimenez Morad.

"Fury erupted last night after it emerged ex-director-general George Entwistle will get a £450,000 payoff," seethed the Sun.

"The blundering boss managed to negotiate a year's salary in lieu of notice when he quit on Saturday, despite his contract only entitling him to six months."

Entwistle's payoff is small change compared to the £7m pocketed by the Sun's own blundering boss, chief executive Rebekah Brooks, when she belatedly resigned over her role in the company's dliatory and deceitful reaction to phone-hacking allegations.

While the paper has never mentioned the "fury" aroused by her reward for failure, an editorial made it very clear what it feels about Entwistle: "there was no way BBC Director General George Entwistle could have survived after the Newsnight paedophile scandal."

In fact there is a precedent Entwistle could have cited had he chose to hang on. Back in March 2003, the Sun printed a photograph of a man it claimed had been convicted of sex offences against children, under the enormous headline "FACE OF KID BAN PERVERT" - only to find that he was an unrelated and innocent man who had to leave his home and was put under police protection.

By coincidence the paper had only been edited by Rebekah Wade (as she then was) for a couple of months. Did she take responsibility and immediately resign? Er, no - not even when the Sun was forced to print two apologies, pay damages and take out adverts in the local press where the man lived to asssure neighbours of his innocence.

In the latest stunning exclusive from the 'newspaper website of the year', MailOnline reveals that a woman who once won Celebrity Big Brother has been shopping for a sofa. Not only that - and make sure you're sitting down for this - but...

RE: Now Brussels takes aim at the Famous Five! Books portraying ‘traditional’ families could be barred

The article by James Chapman (Mail 7/11/2012) claiming that the EU could be planning to ban books portraying stereo typical family values is misleading in the extreme. It was incorrect to suggest that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels does not have legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools; it is a matter for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee report to which your article refers does not suggest banning books- and in any case this is certainly not something which would be legally binding.

Even in areas where the report does call for EU level action and where such action would be legislatively possible, it could only be done if the European Commission makes a formal proposal. In addition, the European Parliament as a whole and also a large majority of Member States must then adopt it.

I hope this important point clarifies the inaccuracies I refer to in your report.

Yours Sincerely

Mary Honeyball MEPLabour spokesperson in Europe on culture media and sport and gender and equality

The reaction of the Mail's Readers' Letters Editor was this (Sarah is Mary's press officer):

Dear Sarah,

I’m guessing James Chapman knows a bit more about the byzantine workings of the European Parliament and its committees than Mary Honeyball does.

Mary was then given a longer explanation as to why they would not publish her letter:

I eventually decided against it on the grounds that it is by no means incorrect that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels may not have direct legal power to intervene on which books are available in UK schools – but you would have to be very naïve not to appreciate the way in which such a thing might become a matter of no choice for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee looking at this subject definitely exists and has published a report. It may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them – and we’re not unfamiliar with the way in which such things begin as criticism and move on towards calls for a ban. After all, to these MEPs, what else are their criticisms for?

It may, of course, be something which isn’t legally binding today – but tomorrow? And that’s all our story warns about.

We’re well aware that this discussion may be at an early stage and ‘EU level action’ would require ‘a European Commission formal proposal’ etc, etc, but we like to warn people well in advance just what those underemployed ‘representatives’ are getting up to in Brussels: forewarned is forearmed.

It seems that although he accepts there is no recommendation to ban books (despite Chapman's original article referring to 'proposals') he thinks it might possibly happen one day at some point in the future and therefore he can't publish a letter challenging the story on the basis of what has actually been said in the report. It's not as if this is a response to a complaint, and the Mail is being asked to publish a retraction in their corrections column. This is just a letter from an MEP - and one that they are scared of letting their readers see.

45 min+1: Aguero takes the ball on his chest masterfully in the box. He finds Silva, who works a slide ball through to Zabaleta. His shot is saved though. The cameras cut to Mancini in his dug out. He looks momentarily interested, sees Zabaleta's shot, then rolls his eyes, slumps in his chair and goes back to talking to himself.

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Books which portray ‘traditional’ images of mothers caring for their children or fathers going out to work could be barred from schools under proposals from Brussels.

An EU report claims that ‘gender stereotyping’ in schools influences the perception of the way boys and girls should behave and damages women’s career opportunities in the future.

Skip straight to the end and the 'spokesman for the London office of the European Commission' is quoted saying:

'This is nonsense. "Brussels" has no legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools, it is a matter for the UK and for schools.

'The European Parliament committee report - which anyway represents just the committee's view - does not suggest banning books.

'And even in areas where it does call for EU level action and where that is legally possible, that can only be done if the Commission makes a proposal - it hasn't - and if the European Parliament as a whole and a large majority of member states then adopt it.'

So eventhough the paper has a quote saying the story is 'nonsense' they run it as 'Brussels wants to ban some books' anyway.

In fact, the report says nothing at all about banning books from schools or anywhere else - the word 'book' isn't used at all. It suggests 'study materials' could be introduced to counter 'gender stereotypes' and suggests there is a need to:

raise awareness in Advertising Standard Committees and self-regulatory bodies about the negative influences of gender discrimination and stereotypes in the media.

Enid Blyton isn't mentioned, either.

The report also looks at the labour market and says:

disproportionate representation of women in part-time jobs and the gender pay gap clearly show that gender stereotypes result in gender discrimination on the labour market.

It makes some suggestions which it believes may remedy this. But Chapman doesn't mention any of this, which seems curious, given the Mail's front page story today, which focuses on another report on the gender pay gap:

That article doesn't mention the report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality either.

People at risk from cholesterol could soon take a simple pill which controls levels and protects sufferers.

Scientists are hailing the treatment as a new fat-buster because of the way it helps to prevent the clogging up of patients’ arteries.

'Scientists are hailing the treatment'. But the Express forgets to mention something rather important about the 'scientists' in question. The research covered by the Express was led by Dr Mitchell Jones. The 'pill' comes from a company called Micropharma.

Dr. Mitchell Jones has been with the company since its inception and is the driving force behind Micropharma’s innovation and R&D.

The paper has included a dissenting view, although it comes deep into the article, as usual:

Victoria Taylor of the British Heart Foundation said: "This is a relatively small piece of research and it’s still some way off before we could recommend probiotic supplements to help people with high cholesterol."

In a report (June 10) on the ‘winmarket’ Yipiii Ltd, which offers a roulette game to win online shopping, we said we had 162 £1 plays but won only a £20 toy.

In fact, the 162 plays included ‘free spins’ won on previous plays and after our test, but before publication, a reporter won a £400 iPad with remaining credit. Players have an 85 per cent chance of a prize or further play and non-winning stakes can be used as discounts on purchases through the site.

Users need to actively log in for the roulette wheel to appear when they are shopping. We apologise to Yipiii for not including this information in the article.

Unlike the original 'investigation', neither apology has appeared on the front page.

Just want to add to the chorus of comments: She is 14, she is a child, stop talking about her as if she is a piece of meat! The only point of this article is to point out how she is hitting puberty and to sexualise her and that is just incredibly wrong.. please stop sexualising her and other young girls.- Isabel, Wolverhampton, 2/11/2012 0:56